Hi Paolo,
I received the first patch from the mailing list, so I think you are
mistaken about the mailer daemon. I agree with Leon that it would be
better to delegate to Bio::PrimarySeq rather than duplicating the code.
Cheers,
Roy.
On 07/06/2012 11:37, Paolo Pavan wrote:
> No, I didn't already send the patch because the mailer daemon blocked it.
>> It should be like this, also according to the programming style of the
> PrimarySeq.pm file:
>> 802,803c802,806
> < sub is_circular { shift->primary_seq->is_circular }
> <
> ---
>> sub is_circular {
>> my $self = shift;
>> return $self->primary_seq->{'is_circular'} = shift if @_;
>> return $self->primary_seq->{'is_circular'};
>> }
>>> 2012/6/7 Leon Timmermans<l.m.timmermans at students.uu.nl>
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Paolo Pavan<paolo.pavan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Do someone agree that they should have the same behaviour?
>>> It the case, attached patch file applied to Bio/Seq.pm file should do the
>>> job.
>>>> I agree, but your patch is flawed. Peeking and poking into the
>> internals of another object is a bad idea from a maintenance point of
>> view, it should probably look like
>>>> sub is_circular { shift->primary_seq->is_circular(@_) }
>>>> Leon
>>> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
>Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l